Britain’s relationship with the EU post Brexit.

[Grumpy Git]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51783580

Another total waste of money that’s comes from these brexit fools.

Leaving the EU aviation safety regulations.

We can set our own up for approx £36m per annum more which will result in firms that follow the standards having to certify under both standards.

Apparently the DfT think we are some sort of slave nation if we dont have our own certification. Jesus help us this is fast becoming beyond the pale

Bonkers, bonkers, bonkers. Te government is filled with idiots who think its 1920 not 2020.

 

[Struner]

But surely you’ll get far better regulation?

 

[Domh245]

Only if we can tempt the Brits currently at EASA back!

Mr Shapps told the publication much of the Cologne-based European Aviation Safety Agency's (EASA) expertise came from the UK and that a lot of its leaders were British.

He said the agency's powers would revert to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) "and the expertise will need to come home to do that, but we'll do it in a gradual way".

 

[Grumpy Git]

Only if we can tempt the Brits currently at EASA back!

Precisely, and given the current state of affairs, why would they?

 

[Senex]

Bonkers, bonkers, bonkers. Te government is filled with idiots who think its 1920 not 2020.

Surely not 1920, but rather 1910, at the end of the Edwardian period when all the old illusions were still intact and our Dreadnoughts still ruled the waves. The Tory Old Fogey Brexiteers and their Young Fogey (or not quite so young in the case of Rees-Mogg) followers are still in the empire on which the sun never set.

 

[najaB]

It is becoming apparent that my backup plan (of getting the flock out of here) is probably going to have to be promoted to being the main plan, with staying and fighting the good fight taking second place.

I am not happy about this at all.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Only if we can tempt the Brits currently at EASA back!

I wouldn't. What's not to like about being somewhere where I can have recourse to law if my employers are being abusive?

 

[DerekC]

It is becoming apparent that my backup plan (of getting the flock out of here) is probably going to have to be promoted to being the main plan, with staying and fighting the good fight taking second place.

Good for you. I have always been of the stay and fight mentality - even with Thatcher. But now, if I were thirty years younger I would be on my way too. Probably Canada.

 

[GrimShady]

Good luck chasing a trawler with an 80,000 ton aircraft carrier sans aircraft.

Trawler max speed on a good day = 14kts
80,000 ton Carrier = 32kts

I love how they might have to call on the private sector to help. Who we gonna call? Trawlerbusters……???

Honestly this is just an example of what a set of buffoons our government has become. I'm starting to hope that Trump does win in November, that way we can avoid the joint awards of Earth Laughing Stock & Most Ineffective Banana Republic.

Quite simple. Fold fishery protection to the RN again or sub contract it out to companies that have patrol vessels or at least vessels capable of 20kts. It's not hard, we did the same when the Emergency Towing fleet was disbanded ten years ago.

Only good news for those of us working at sea.

 

[Grumpy Git]

Hope the construction firm building the new nuclear power station in the Bristol Channel estuary are not the same lot as built the Coronavirus quarantine hotel in China?

 

[Peter Kelford]

Trawler max speed on a good day = 14kts
80,000 ton Carrier = 32kts

But a trawler is a lot more manoeuvrable. Short of using weaponry, there is nothing that will stop the trawlers. The only thing that will be useful is the RIB that can be deployed from large ships, or the small cutters.

Quite simple. Fold fishery protection to the RN again or sub contract it out to companies that have patrol vessels or at least vessels capable of 20kts. It's not hard, we did the same when the Emergency Towing fleet was disbanded ten years ago.

Only good news for those of us working at sea.

The idea of 'Polish rent-a-cop contracted by HMG to fend off EU trawlers' smacks of hypocrisy and double standards.

 

[GrimShady]

But a trawler is a lot more manoeuvrable. Short of using weaponry, there is nothing that will stop the trawlers. The only thing that will be useful is the RIB that can be deployed from large ships, or the small cutters.


The idea of 'Polish rent-a-cop contracted by HMG to fend off EU trawlers' smacks of hypocrisy and double standards.

It may be more manoeuvrable but that doesn't mean it's never going to lose a vessel capable of 32 knots. There is a variety of small craft that can be deployed from large vessels.
Pretty much every passenger vessel is equipped with an FRC.

That is only one of many possibilities, ideally I'd prefer the creation of a new agency or to enlarge the SFPA to become a national agency.

 

[DerekC]

The government has always cocked up fishing rights before so no doubt it will again this time. There is an enormous amount of history behind the issue.

 

[Cowley]

It may be more manoeuvrable but that doesn't mean it's never going to lose a vessel capable of 32 knots. There is a variety of small craft that can be deployed from large vessels.
Pretty much every passenger vessel is equipped with an FRC.

That is only one of many possibilities, ideally I'd prefer the creation of a new agency or to enlarge the SFPA to become a national agency.

It may be more manoeuvrable but that doesn't mean it's never going to lose a vessel capable of 32 knots. There is a variety of small craft that can be deployed from large vessels.
Pretty much every passenger vessel is equipped with an FRC.

That is only one of many possibilities, ideally I'd prefer the creation of a new agency or to enlarge the SFPA to become a national agency.

What is an FRC and the SFPA?

 

[Peter Kelford]

It may be more manoeuvrable but that doesn't mean it's never going to lose a vessel capable of 32 knots. There is a variety of small craft that can be deployed from large vessels.
Pretty much every passenger vessel is equipped with an FRC.

That is only one of many possibilities, ideally I'd prefer the creation of a new agency or to enlarge the SFPA to become a national agency.

I didn't say lose the boat. Mooring a hulk in the middle of the Channel would serve the same purpose as a state-of-the-art warship. What about efficient uses? The French Gendarmerie Maritime as a Civil Defence force has some useful equipment, whilst there is a port at Cherbourg for medium-sized craft. Larger ships can come from Brest.

FRC: Fast Response Craft
SFPA: Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency
The English equivalent is MFA - Marine and Fisheries Organisation

 

[edwin_m]

It may be more manoeuvrable but that doesn't mean it's never going to lose a vessel capable of 32 knots. There is a variety of small craft that can be deployed from large vessels.
Pretty much every passenger vessel is equipped with an FRC.

That is only one of many possibilities, ideally I'd prefer the creation of a new agency or to enlarge the SFPA to become a national agency.

I think the point here is that a small cutter would be at least as effective as an aircraft carrier at catching rogue trawlers, and the price of the latter would have bought a lot of the former.

 

[Grumpy Git]

I think the point here is that a small cutter would be at least as effective as an aircraft carrier at catching rogue trawlers, and the price of the latter would have bought a lot of the former.

Yes, but you can't stick-out your Union Jack waistcoated chest the same with the small ships.

The whole fisheries debate is a political red-herring anyway and is nothing more than regular Daily Mail headline guff. Particularly when you consider the EU accounts for >50% of the sales of the fish caught.

 

[Esker-pades]

Lets be honest, blokes like Rees-Mogg wouldn't blink if we started sending children up chimneys again (so long as they aren't one if his own considerable brood).

"Parents will now have the flexibility to decide whether or not they want their children to go up chimneys."

Yes, but you can't stick-out your Union Jack waistcoated chest the same with the small ships.

The whole fisheries debate is a political red-herring anyway and is nothing more than regular Daily Mail headline guff. Particularly when you consider the EU accounts for >50% of the sales of the fish caught.

My emphasis.

Great pun.

 

[GrimShady]

I think the point here is that a small cutter would be at least as effective as an aircraft carrier at catching rogue trawlers, and the price of the latter would have bought a lot of the former.

Quite right, however these are two very different assets. A carrier exists to project blue water power on a global scale.

Ultimately we'll require both.

 

[Grumpy Git]

Quite right, however these are two very different assets. A non-carrier exists to project blue water power on a global scale.

Ultimately we'll require both.

FTFY.

 

[hooverboy]

I think the point here is that a small cutter would be at least as effective as an aircraft carrier at catching rogue trawlers, and the price of the latter would have bought a lot of the former.

An aircraft carrier would not be used for such a trivial deployment!..besides we only have 2 of them.
coastguard functions would be mainly corvette-type vessels, with the odd frigate making an apperarance from time to time.

the majority of the work will be surveillance in any case, which means drones for tackling miscreants such as tresspassing trawlers and purveyors of illicit contraband.
These could be upgraded to "reaper" types with a couple of hellfire missiles attatched!

The navy does need some new kit though, and given the nature of some of the present/future threats, they need lots of smaller craft,rather than one or two big ships to go willy-waving with.
The next generation larger craft they employ should be used as mother ships for fleets of micro UAV's/USV's.You will get almost the reach of an aircraft carrier on something the size of a cruiser.


I would say also the same thing about our nuclear missiles.We can keep fissile tonnage at about the same level, but we only need the city-busters in case of confrontation with a few large countries. It is more likely that we will be in conflict with multiple smaller countries similtaneously ,perhaps over a very large theatre,looking at the present lay of the land,so concentrating all your firepower in one area is not a particularly good strategy.

In other cases they too could be shrunk to a couple of kilotonnes each, but we should have more of them..primarily for use as a tactical device to take out a military installation.
( four each or so to go on board the above UAV'/USV' fleets), with the big subs retaining the trident-type, but dropping to 40 or so each instead of 64.

 

[Peter Kelford]

An aircraft carrier would not be used for such a trivial deployment!..besides we only have 2 of them.
coastguard functions would be mainly corvette-type vessels, with the odd frigate making an apperarance from time to time.

I have always thought most likely that a destroyer or frigate is used, but even then they are incompetent for the task at hand. The capability needs to be to deter and to board. Using lethal force to sink small fishing vessels would be absolutely idiotic not to mention a war crime. What's needed are small RIBs with trained men able to board any small ship and force the captain to change course and leave British waters, not sink the ship in British waters.

In other cases they too could be shrunk to a couple of kilotonnes each, but we should have more of them..primarily for use as a tactical device to take out a military installation.
( four each or so to go on board the above UAV'/USV' fleets), with the big subs retaining the trident-type, but dropping to 40 or so each instead of 64.

But it's not as good-looking on paper. Vanity projects are often white elephants.

 

[RichT54]

I have always thought most likely that a destroyer or frigate is used, but even then they are incompetent for the task at hand. The capability needs to be to deter and to board. Using lethal force to sink small fishing vessels would be absolutely idiotic not to mention a war crime. What's needed are small RIBs with trained men able to board any small ship and force the captain to change course and leave British waters, not sink the ship in British waters.

The Royal Navy uses River Class Offshore Patrol Vessels for fishery protection:

Royal Navy Offshore Patrol Vessels conduct fishery protection duties and safeguard the integrity of the UK's territorial waters.

 

[ainsworth74]

No one is sending aircraft carriers to go and round up errant fisherman! I mean it quite obviously could though it feels like a stupendous amount of overkill. Thankfully the Royal Navy and Governments over many years have agreed that this would, indeed, be a very silly idea and so instead operate ships that are more suited to the task in the form of the Fishery Protection Squadron currently equipped with River class OPVs.

That squadron has actually been strengthened over recent years and is expected to number eight ships in the near future (though one is permanently deployed down in the Falkland Islands and there are persistent rumours another might end up deployed in Gibraltar) so I'd say that we've got a fairly good handle on things at the moment without resorting to anything to excessive. UK Border Force also have some customs cutters (four or five) which are more involved in the customs/policing side of things (i.e. intercepting illegal shipments of cigarettes or narcotics).

I do think that there probably is a discussion worth having about whether or not those two forces are actually sufficient in a post-Brexit world to actually police our Exclusive Economic Zone considering it's something on the order of 300,000 square miles of water. But a lot of that probably depends on what the future relationship with the EU with regards to fishing and trade actually looks like. The bigger the split then quite possibly the bigger the force required to police it!

For instance I could well foresee a need to acquire additional maritime patrol aircraft beyond the nine already on order. Whilst they're not going to be undertaking any inspections of suspect vessels they can cover a heck of a lot more sea than even a dozen ships could and so could direct the attentions of the actual surface assets accordingly. But the fleet was acquired in a different world (the deal for the nine came before Brexit even if the contracts were inked after) so it's doubtful anyone thought that they might end up tangled in fisheries and customs duties anything other than occasionally (if at all)!

FTFY.

Christ this codswallop is never going to end is it?

 

[Enthusiast]

All this talk about fishery protection seems to hinge on the fact that foreign vessels from the EU will simply ignore international law on a massive scale. Is this really likely?

What's not to like about being somewhere where I can have recourse to law if my employers are being abusive?

You have that protection here in the UK and it is nor dependent on membership of the EU.

 

[Grumpy Git]

Christ this codswallop is never going to end is it?

It was meant to be sarcastic.

 

[Peter Kelford]

You have that protection here in the UK and it is nor dependent on membership of the EU

Yes, but what about zero-hours contracts, the EU Working Time Directive, ECJ cases on 'self-employed' taxi drivers etc.? An at least partial ban on zero-hours contracts is likely going to coming into force soon if one is honest about it.

 

[Grumpy Git]

I'm curious to see how long it will take the telecoms giants to re-introduce roaming charges?

I'm hopeful that we will do the same as Switzerland and stay 'aligned', but only time will tell.

 

[najaB]

You have that protection here in the UK...

For now...

 

[jon0844]

I'm curious to see how long it will take the telecoms giants to re-introduce roaming charges?

I'm hopeful that we will do the same as Switzerland and stay 'aligned', but only time will tell.

I don't see the introduction of charges per se, but I can see it becoming an add-on. Currently EE and Vodafone offer roaming beyond the EU at no extra cost, but only with some sort of add-on (or on a 'max' plan that has the cost included within the monthly fee).

What I see changing is a reduced cap on how much data is included, and hefty run-on charges. I also see the ending of tethering, so forget about sharing your data connection with a laptop/tablet in your hotel room, airport etc. You'll need to probably start using public Wi-Fi again, with all the speed/signal/security issues - plus the hassle of having to sign up to them instead of just being up and running instantly.

When we are no longer bound by EU rules on net neutrality, it will also become legal again to throttle certain services. Networks could block Netflix/YouTube etc when roaming (or, again, charge for it). They could block the ability to access Google Drive or other cloud services. In fact, they could block whatever they like - as Three did until the EU forced them to stop. Three allowed Facebook, IG, Twitter and other selected services to operate without any restrictions, but crippled everything else.

People roaming in the EU today have NO restrictions at all, besides a monthly data cap (of between 19-25GB per month) and I am sure that will change. Partly because I've been told by people who actually play a part in setting tariffs at networks (which I won't name) that this is exactly what they expect will happen. I'm not suggesting networks operate like a cartel, but they WILL be looking at what each other intend to do - and I'd be absolutely stunned if most of my predictions aren't proven to be accurate.

For what it's worth, if you want to see what it might be like.. take a Three SIM to the USA or somewhere else outside the EU and see how they manage data. Also remember there used to be traffic shaping even in the UK at busy times, something that - again - the EU changed, and Ofcom adhere to. I fear Ofcom will become heavily controlled by our Government like the FCC in the USA to do away with many rights and protections for using the Internet.

So, even those who don't care about using phones abroad will probably see negative changes here in the UK too.